Pre-consultation opportunity must be meaningful before issuing a show-cause notice; inadequate notice invalidated the demand-cum-show-cause notice.

A demand-cum-show-cause notice was set aside because the pre-consultation process did not provide a meaningful opportunity to respond. The notice allowed only one day for appearance and referred to virtual consultation, but the petitioner's assertion that it went to file a reply and no responsible officer was available was not specifically denied. Once the department chose to issue a pre-consultation notice, it was bound to afford a proper opportunity of consultation and reply. The notice was therefore invalid for denial of procedural fairness, without any adjudication on the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand-cum-show-cause notice was liable to be set aside for want of a proper pre-consultation opportunity before issuance of the notice.

Analysis: The pre-consultation notice granted only one day's notice for appearance and also referred to the option of virtual consultation, but there was no meaningful opportunity available to the petitioner to respond. The factual assertion that the petitioner went to the office to submit a reply, but no responsible was present and the reply was not accepted, was not specifically denied. In these circumstances, the authorities' contention that pre-consultation was unnecessary was not accepted once the department itself had chosen to issue a pre-consultation notice.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was set aside for denial of proper opportunity of reply and consultation, without any adjudication on merits.

---